It is deeply troubling that, despite the existence of the Prohibition of Fraudulent Practices on Land and Property Law, 2012, Governor Charles Soludo has not enforced it with the urgency and consistency it requires. His deputy, who serves as Chairman of the Anambra State Boundary Committee, is not a ceremonial figure in this matter. He is statutorily positioned to mediate inter-community land disputes, supervise boundary demarcations, and ensure procedural fairness in land-related conflicts. Yet, in response to the urgency of Enugwu-Agidi’s complaints, leadership has appeared slow and insufficiently decisive, leaving the community exposed to continued uncertainty.
The 2012 law was enacted to protect citizens and communities from land grabbing, fraudulent conveyances, and illegal extortion by agents and intermediaries. It prescribes penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years. However, enforcement has remained inconsistent, and allegations of collusion between land speculators and certain law enforcement actors, if proven, would represent a grave institutional failure.
Administrative warnings without prosecution weaken the deterrent value of the statute. Where enforcement appears selective or hesitant, public confidence in the integrity of land governance erodes. Laws that are not applied uniformly risk creating the perception that influence and access may shield wrongdoing, while vulnerable communities remain unprotected.
In Nigeria, the legal position regarding the armed forces is unambiguous: the military is not constitutionally established for private commercial deployment. The Armed Forces Act (Cap A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004) distinguishes national defense responsibilities from private interests. Sections 26 and 114 emphasize that military personnel remain accountable under civil law and may be subject to court-martial where conduct falls outside lawful duty.
These statutory safeguards exist to prevent the diversion of state coercive power into private disputes. Their enforcement protects not only Nigeria’s territorial integrity but also the credibility and neutrality of its armed institutions. Effective oversight requires cooperation between federal and state authorities to ensure that deployments are lawfully authorized and constitutionally justified.
In Enugwu-Agidi, located within Anambra State’s Awka Capital Territory, what began as a land dispute has reportedly evolved into a constitutional and civil-military concern. The controversy raises critical questions regarding property rights, lawful deployment of armed personnel, and the limits of military involvement in civilian matters.
Community representatives allege that armed personnel of the Nigerian Air Force have been present on disputed communal land connected to a private estate development known as the NAF Green Garden Estate.
According to community sources, including Prince Chinedu Ikeanyi, more than 150 plots of ancestral land in the Ezionugo area, near the Enugwu-Agidi and Nawgu boundary, are in dispute. The land is said to be under development by Green Gardens Limited, reportedly associated with businessman Marc Benito Ozigbo of Enugwu-Ukwu in Njikoka Local Government Area.
Residents assert that uniformed military personnel have maintained a continuous presence at the site. Approximately two years ago, individuals accompanied by soldiers allegedly erected a signboard bearing the inscription “Military Zone Keep Off.”
If the estate is privately owned, legitimate legal questions arise regarding the authority under which such a designation was displayed. The Federal Ministry of Defence and the Anambra State Government would be well advised to conduct an independent and transparent inquiry to determine whether military insignia or personnel were deployed pursuant to lawful authorization.
Community leaders further state that inquiries made to the Army’s 82 Division in Enugu and the 302 Artillery Regiment in Onitsha did not confirm any formally sanctioned military project in Enugwu-Agidi. If accurate, this would raise serious concerns about possible unauthorized invocation of military authority.
The developers have previously indicated plans to construct approximately 800 residential duplex units on what they describe as strategically located land. However, community leaders maintain that the land constitutes communal property and deny granting valid consent for its alienation.
The dispute is reportedly before the courts. Community members contend that a subsisting court order restrains military access to the land. They nevertheless allege continued presence, property damage, intimidation, and disruption of agricultural and development activities. These allegations remain subject to judicial determination.
The economic consequences have also been significant. The protracted dispute has reportedly discouraged investment and slowed development activity within the community.
Nigeria’s constitutional framework provides clear guidance. Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to property and mandates due process and compensation for compulsory acquisition. Section 217(2) affirms that the armed forces operate under civil authority.
If military personnel were deployed to guard private property or enforce contested land claims outside a lawful mandate, such action could constitute unauthorized deployment and expose responsible parties to both civil and military liability. Military uniform does not displace civil jurisdiction in property disputes.
The Enugwu-Agidi matter arises against the backdrop of prior judicial rulings involving military land controversies in Oyo, Osun, and Kaduna States, where courts affirmed property rights and awarded compensation. While appellate processes may delay enforcement, the judiciary has consistently reaffirmed constitutional supremacy over land matters.
In November 2025, Nigeria’s Minister of Defence, Mohammed Badaru Abubakar, publicly stated that the Ministry and Military High Command would protect officers engaged in “lawful duty.” The statement underscores the importance of clarifying what constitutes lawful deployment in civil land disputes.
At its core, this dispute concerns constitutional boundaries. Land administration falls within the authority of state governors under the Land Use Act. The armed forces are constitutionally mandated to defend Nigeria’s sovereignty and may assist civil authorities only upon lawful requisition.
Blurring these lines risks institutional erosion. The perceived alignment of military force with private commercial interests undermines public trust in both democratic governance and the armed forces.
For residents of Enugwu-Agidi, the issue is not abstract. It involves ancestral heritage, economic survival, and faith in constitutional protections.
The developers maintain that their project is legitimate. However, clarity regarding the legal basis of any military involvement remains essential. Transparent investigation, judicial determination, and strict adherence to constitutional procedure are necessary to prevent escalation.
In a constitutional democracy, ownership disputes are resolved in courtrooms, not by armed presence. The resolution of Enugwu-Agidi’s dispute will therefore carry implications beyond a single community. It will test the resilience of governor soludo and his deputy’s commitment to civil supremacy, institutional accountability, and the rule of law. Enugwu Agidi requires the establishment of state government–authorized bodies to facilitate the reclamation and restoration of ancestral lands
Daniel Nduka Okonkwo is a Nigerian investigative journalist, publisher of Profiles International Human Rights Advocate, and policy analyst whose work focuses on governance, institutional accountability, and political power. He is also a human rights activist, human rights advocate, and human rights journalist. His reporting and analysis have appeared in Sahara Reporters, African Defence Forum, Daily Intel Newspapers, Opinion Nigeria, African Angle, and other international media platforms. He writes from Nigeria and can be reached at dan.okonkwo.73@gmail.com.
